I’m dying to move on to another topic that has recently caught my interest: social media and simulacra. However, before I do, I would like to conclude my discussion of the latest Matrix film trailer, and more to the point, ideas raised by the previous three films that may prove quite significant in this latest film.
The last idea I wish to discuss is related to the theory that perhaps leaving the Matrix does not actually result in the removal from a simulation. Some have referred to this idea as being like an “inception” theory of the Matrix. I do not believe this is what is going on in the Matrix story, and now I will discuss why I think this way. As always, be aware there are very likely spoilers about to be discussed, as particular details of the story are a part of this discussion.
To begin this discussion, I will put aside the Matrix story itself, and talk about simulation theory in general. For those unfamiliar, simulation theory is the theory that we all exist in some sort of simulated reality. That is to say, the real world is not real, in some way. I keep suggesting a vagueness in what I say because it isn’t entirely clear what one might mean by “real world,” and therefore it is challenging to suggest what might “not be real.” This is a very challenging idea, so I will elaborate more on this.
What is reality? What is “the world?” There is a philosophical idea called solipsism, which suggests that one cannot be certain that anything at all can exist outside one’s mind. That is, following from René Descartes Meditations, there is virtually nothing we can be certain about. For Descartes, he suggested that my own existence is one of the very, very few things I might be able to be certain of, and suggested it in the phrase “I think; I am.” That is, when I utter the statement “I think,” or if I even conceive of the idea that I am thinking (like in the case that I think the thought “I think”), there must be something doing this thinking. Ergo, the thing that is thinking (in this case “I”) must necessarily exist in order to do the action of thinking. If this logic holds, then “I” must necessarily exist. Hence “I think; I am.”
There is a whole line of philosophical thought that follows this sort of logical reasoning, called Phenomenology, where it is believed that by following this sort of reasoning, we can be absolutely certain about many, many things. Unfortunately, the logical process that is allegedly required in order to accomplish this is exceedingly difficult to understand and follow, and the person responsible for trying to lay the process down (Edmund Husserl) never had the chance to finish his work.
Returning now to the question at hand, what is reality? I think most people would generally agree with me in suggesting that reality is something like that which exists in spite of us. That is, the world is somehow outside and separate from us. The world can exist even if we do not. The world can exist, even if I do not exist. The world is in some sense objective, where I am subjective. What makes the world so important is that the world presents a bridge between myself and other possible consciousnesses.
Reality, then, is the world as occupied by myself and possibly others. Reality is populated by the world and (hopefully) many consciousnesses. Those consciousnesses have some limited amount of control over the world, but generally are subject to the rules and laws of the world. For example, I am subject to gravity, as in I cannot simply leap away from the Earth and float wherever I may wish. The world and all the consciousnesses bound to that world make up a reality.
This leads us to raise a simple question then: how can the world then not be real? If we exist in it, and if it provides a bridge between ourselves and others, and if it can exist without us in it, then is it not the case that that world is “real?” In the case of the Matrix, being a simulated reality, does it not exhibit all of these features? Many will be quite confident to suggest that the Matrix, or any other simulation, is clearly not “real,” especially when they compare it to what they consider to be “real.” But in those cases, how do they know with such certainty? What is it about the simulated reality that is unlike the “real” reality?
It seems to me the main difference occurs with regard to how the two realities relate to one another. That is, the Matrix EXISTS inside the “real” world. The Matrix is a construct generated within the real world. Therefore, the Matrix is in some sense lesser than the real world. After all, the rules of our world already seem to suggest that things that are larger cannot be contained in things that are smaller (nod here to those Doctor Who fans who are now uttering about TARDISs).
Putting this another way, Descartes in his same Meditations offered what he considered evidence for the existence of God. For Descartes, he questioned how a human, being limited and finite, could conceive of the infinite. A finite being should be unable to conceive of something infinite, because the infinite is clearly much larger and more complex. As before, something that is larger cannot be contained within something smaller than itself. Therefore, for Descartes, for humans to have an idea of the infinite, we would have had to have that idea imprinted in our minds from some outside source. This outside source must be something that is infinite, such as God. And therefore God must exist, in order to give us this infinite idea.
There are certainly weaknesses that can be attacked in his argument. As I often try to impress upon people, infinity is NOT a number. Infinity is an idea regarding boundlessness. That is, to speak of infinity is to speak of something that is unbounded. There is no number that is infinity; to count to infinity is the same as saying I will count without stopping, ever. Infinity has no size to speak of, and therefore it makes no sense to speak of infinity being “too large” for a finite being to comprehend. In fact, to say finite is simply to say that something has boundaries; so even talk of the finite is not to be talking about size either.
This all amounts to misunderstandings. In the case of the simulated reality of the Matrix, it is clearly in some way contained by the “real” world. If one grants this simple fact, then one can suggest that escaping the confines of the Matrix is possible; escaping into a “larger” world. If all this is true, then it is also conceivable that one might escape the “real” world into something larger still.
What this brief exploration shows us is that if there is such a thing as a simulated reality contained within another greater reality, then it is ALWAYS possible for there to be further greater realities one could escape into. The scope and nature of each greater reality is impossible to speculate about until such time as one has successfully escaped into that greater reality, just as Morpheus suggests that “no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.”
No amount of evidence can be provided to prove with certainty that this reality we exist in is definitively the top level reality. It is ALWAYS possible that our reality is simply a simulation contained within another, larger reality. And in the Matrix storyline, this is always possibly the case as well. However, what reason might the author of the story have to suggest this is the case? Why suggest to the audience that doubt should exist in the established “real world?”
Stories about characters who have spent the entire time in a dream, only to awaken at the conclusion of the story often feel unsatisfying. There have been precious few cases where such literary structures have proven to be successful (the most obvious to me is the Usual Suspects). I do not believe the latest chapter in the Matrix story will suggest that we should question the established real world. If it does, it damned well better have a really good reason for doing so.